MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411423840 · doi:10.1108/jstpm-05-2024-0176

Framing gender in Pakistan’s digital policies: a critical examination through capabilities and decolonial feminist lenses

2025· article· en· W4411423840 on OpenAlexaff
Khwaja Naveed, Aamir Jamal, Iftikhar Ahmad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Science and Technology Policy Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)SociologyFeminismNarrativeGender studiesMisrepresentationPrecarityIdeologyInclusion (mineral)IntersectionalityOriginalityPolitical scienceSocial sciencePoliticsQualitative researchLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The authors problematize prevailing narratives surrounding gender in Pakistan’s digital policy landscape. Focused on challenging the dominant perspectives emanating from the Global North, our study seeks to contribute to the development of more inclusive policies. By applying the capabilities approach and decolonial feminism, they aim to investigate the intersectional vulnerabilities and gendered precarity perpetuated by the current framing of digital inclusion. This research endeavors to dismantle the simplistic notion of digital platforms as a universal remedy for gender equality and instead emphasizes the importance of context-sensitive and decolonial perspectives. Design/methodology/approach They adopt a combination of the capabilities approach and decolonial feminism to critically examine the portrayal of gender within Pakistan’s digital policy landscape, unraveling the underlying assumptions, discourses and ideologies shaping the gender gap framing in the context of digital inclusion. They treat policy documents as active agents shaping social reality, using content analysis to analyze the epistemic methods used in generating knowledge about the gender gap in digital inclusion. Findings Our study reveals that the gender gap framing in Pakistan’s digital inclusion is influenced by specific assumptions, discourses and ideologies embedded in policy documents. They shed light on how misrepresentation and instrumentalization contribute to intersectional vulnerabilities faced by women. Originality/value By treating policy documents as active agents shaping social reality, they provide a unique perspective on the gender gap in digital inclusion. This study challenges established narratives originating from the Global North and advocates for more inclusive policies. Our theoretical framework unveils the complexities of gender dynamics in digital platform work informing contextually positioned policymaking.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0210.067
Scholarly communication0.0180.015
Open science0.0010.012
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.375 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Science and Technology Policy ManagementSame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207